This project page is move-protected.

Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests Announcements
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Proposals reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about suggestions for improving Wikibooks.

Start allowing game strategies[edit source]

Proposal[edit source]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Discussion[edit source]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Implementation[edit source]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Draft policy created[edit source]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Post-closure discussions[edit source]

A question about copyright[edit source]

Btw, is map art in Minecraft under free use? Can they be uploaded to wikimedia commons? In case you don’t know, in Minecraft you can create art by placing blocks on the ground in a certain area and then use a map to map this area. This has many applications. This has many applications and I’m interested to know if it also has to be uploaded to Wikibooks because it’s technically the creation of the guy who draws the map art. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 13:33, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gifnk dlm 2020: I don't think so, no. If "map art" involves objects and assets from Minecraft itself, then that would not be free use (in general, unless the non-free elements can be cropped out). However, if it's just a drawing solely by the author, that would qualify. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 14:04, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, I see. Thank you very much! I think that it’s ok to upload to Wikibooks because if I cropped out the surrounding how would I prove that it’s a screenshot from Minecraft and not just something from MS-Paint. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 14:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Back on this topic, if we want to make the "open-source" video game guide, what if we needed to uses game art of the game itself? I believe we couldn't just upload to Wikimedia Commons ?
Note: It shouldn't be a problem for Open Source Game like [[ ]] but I meant for commercial close sourced games ? Asked by Encik Tekateki (discusscontribs) 00:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Encik Tekateki: yes it is a bit tricky, as Commons isn't really an option, unless you go the c:Commons:OTRS route or create your own images.
However we are discussing a new non-free media policy below; see the draft at Wikibooks:Media/sandbox. It is pretty well inline with that of Wikipedia, and video game articles there often have non-free media illustrating them, which is allowed within policy. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:19, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
May we record the chess moves from the automatic demonstrations by the computer with regard to copyright? So many video games feature chess and its variants like Chinese chess. If yes, maybe the notations from the computer playing both sides will aid studying.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 00:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be okay personally, though I presume you're referring to chess moves given out by the computer when playing against someone else? Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the moves by computer vs. computer, like a sample in Star Wars Chess.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 02:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that can be copyrighted, correct me if I'm wrong. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:02, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems correct, see see this recent judgement. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for the valuable information that encourages studying chess.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 05:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Collections of Wikibooks about video games[edit source]

Btw, if I make a collection of a wikibook about video game strategies, and the book contains fair use images, can I also use a fair use image as the cover image of the book? Because I think that a screenshot of the game would work best as a cover image but maybe that’s not allowed, idk. 🤷🏻‍♂️ Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 08:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gifnk dlm 2020: as far as I'm aware, Collections is pretty well defunct. It was basically a way of collecting a book or several books together to create a downloadable PDF for offline use. That capability is broken at the moment, although it may be possible to order a paid printed copy of books (at least, you can do that at Wikiedia). --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:23, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd:, thank you very much for the reply! It’s possible to order collections as printed books also in Wikibooks (I never did but I looked on the previews). But it has some issues, for example this collection about roblox game development contains a quinze in it (can be seen here, and in the preview it shows just the mediawiki code that was used to create this quiz not the quiz itself. This made me wonder if the same problems happen when creating pdf versions, but back to topic - my original question is can I use fair use images in the title page of the pdf version? 😅 If not, can I at lease use them in the pdf file itself? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 15:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: Wikibooks:Collections/ROBLOX Game Development links to pages in the Roblox Game Development and Lua Programming. Things like quizzes aren't functional in PDF versions (as far as I know). As far as I'm aware, rules for online and PDF versions are identical with respect to images and everything else; but its best not to use non-free media in title pages, as it may go against the rules. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:03, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd:, I see. I don’t think that quizzes are supposed to be “functional” in pdf versions (functional in the sense that they actually work - a pdf version is meant for printing if someone wanted an “interactive” experience, they would read the original book in Wikibooks. I do however expect them to render properly, I want the readers to see a box with the questions and the answers and not <quiz display="simple"> {What is ROBLOX? |type="[]"} + A website where the content is produced by users (a user-generated website) || Almost all of the content on the ROBLOX website is produced by users. This includes assets in the catalog, content such as comments, forum posts, group wall posts and so on, and also games. - A website that gives information on a particular topic (an informational website) + A platform for developing games (a game development platform) || ROBLOX can be used as a game development platform because users can use the ROBLOX game engine to develop games. + A website for hosting games (a game host) || Games that use the ROBLOX engine can be hosted on ROBLOX..
I think you see what I mean. For copyright purposes, this is the link to the permanent revision from which I took this question (from my understanding I must link to it otherwise it’s copyright infringement). That’s the sort of thing that the collection creator does so I was wandering if pdf versions have the same problem. Again, I don’t expect an interactive quiz in pdf only an image of how it looks like in Wikibooks. Thank in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 16:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd: and @Gifnk dlm 2020:, I think the PDF version of a book isn't too different from taking a print version of any book and saving that to PDF. With that in mind, I think it's OK to have non-free images for a PDF version. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 17:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: and@Gifnk dlm 2020: I was talking about the title page. For the book mentioned, the title page is Roblox Game Development, and there is no image. But if you were creating a Minecraft title page, one solution would be to use something fromc:Category:Minecraft. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd: Even for the title page, I think it is reasonable to assume that the fair-use image is useful, as it "identifies" the book. Hence I am personally inclined to think that this usage is fine. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 17:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: well you could be right. But erring on the side of caution, it might be best to use a free image if available. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard: From what I see, c:category:Minecraft has many good images that can be used for title pages. c:category:Roblox has much less images and most of them are not suitable for being on a title page. the pdf version of the book about Mandarin has an image on the title page while Chinese (Mandarin)/Print version doesn’t. And when I asked about using fair use images in title pages I meant is there a policy that forbids that. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 18:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: No, I'm not aware of such a policy (one that explicitly blocks fair-use images in PDF versions) Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 18:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, thank you very much! I heard that in Wikipedia there’s a policy that doesn’t allow fair use images as cover images of books but maybe I’m mistaken. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 21:50, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: I am not aware of such a rule (also I am not sure what "cover images of books" would mean for Wikipedia because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, unlike Wikibooks). Regardless, I think you'll be fine from a Wikibooks perspective. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, I meant w:Book:The Simpsons episodes and other similar books. They are collections of different Wikipedia articles and if I’m not mistaken I think there’s a rule that forbids the usage of fair use images as the cover image, but I could be wrong. If you press on the cover image of this book you will see that it’s in public domain because it doesn’t meet the “Threshold of originality”. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 09:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Walkthroughs[edit source]

Ou the new policy that can be found at Wikibooks:Strategy guides only discusses strategy guides so I was wandering are walkthroughs still not allowed? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 14:55, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gifnk dlm 2020: What are the differences? I presume walkthroughs would be describing the journey of a game? Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 15:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, exactly. After seeing your comment, I researched a bit more into the difference between a strategy and a walkthrough, and in w:Strategy guide, it’s written: “Strategy guides are instruction books that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games. The line between strategy guides and walkthroughs is somewhat blurred, with the former often containing or being written around the latter. Strategy guides are often published in print, both in book form and also as articles within video game magazines. In cases of exceptionally popular game titles, guides may be sold through more mainstream publication channels, such as bookstores or even newsstands. Some publishers also sell E-Book versions on their websites.”. In w:Video game walkthrough it’s written: “A video game walkthrough is a guide aimed towards improving a player's skill within a particular video game and often designed to assist players in completing either an entire video game or specific elements. Walkthroughs may alternatively be set up as a playthrough, where players record themselves playing through a game and upload or live-stream it to the internet. Walkthroughs may be considered guides on helping to enhance the experience of players, to assist towards unlocking game achievements or simply as a means to socialise with like-minded individuals as a distraction from everyday life.”. When asking this question I didn’t realize they were so similar to each other. I thought that strategy guides and walkthroughs are entirely different - with strategy guides only giving strategies and walkthroughs just giving a step by step tutorial without explaining why this is the best way and without giving multiple ways. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 15:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: I always intended it to describe walkthroughs as well as strategy guides, so I have amended the lead to make this clear. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you added the words “and walkthroughs”. Thank you every much! (btw, to y’all wandering I didn’t ping him because I thanked him using the thanks log and I think it’s spam to also ping here.) -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 21:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A question about game notability and screenshots[edit source]

Hi, been a long time since the last message was posted here, but I have a question regarding a wikibook I would like to start working on. I have been thinking recently about a wikibook about Fireboy and Watergirl, and I have two questions. The first is wether or not this game is notable? I have found several reviews (1, 2, 3, 4, and much more). Is this enough to show that the game is notable? Another question is about screenshots. The way I envision the book is that every chapter will be about a certain level in the game and will contain at least one screenshot of this level (sometimes more is necessary) and a guide on the different ways to pass this level. I have created the book Minecraft resource gathering but since I’m a bit busy I didn’t have the time to make screenshots for the book. Since Fireboy and Watergirl can be played in the browser I think I will be able to start working on this book right now theoretically. But does such book follow the guidelines? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 14:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gifnk dlm 2020: hi. My feelings is that the game has a reasonable appearances of significance, particularly on the basis of the Australian Council on Children and the Media. For your second question, the main question to ask yourself is about this from WB:FU: Contextual significance. Non-free media are used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in question, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. In other words, avoid decorative usage, the image should help with understanding of the topic. Post the minimum number of images to convey this, and include a rationale for usage each time. Also, try to keep the resolution below 800*600. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your screenshot proposal looks OK. WB:FU is meant to prevent unnecessary use of non-free images; if you think it's needed, go ahead. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 18:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard:, thank you very much! I don’t think there’s any way to describe the levels in Fireboy and Watergirl without showing screenshots of them, and if the screenshots end up being more than 800*600 (which I hardly believe will happen) I will rescale it. But what do you mean by including the rationale each time? Should I write with each image that I upload a justification to why this image is necessary? If yes, then how should I word this justification? Is there any example that I can follow? Thanks in advance -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 19:58, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: see WB:UPLOAD point 5: you need to include the {{non-free use rationale}} template for each use of the file, which must be filled with a rationale for "Why a book or module requires the use of this media". --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:07, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd:, I see. Can you send an example of a file with non free rational so that I can get a better idea of what should be written? Thanks in advance. P.S. I’m so used to Middle English Wikipedia that I want to type Wp/enm/Ping instead of ping every time. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 20:12, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: see any of the files listed at Category:Non-free files, there are literally hundreds of files you can look at. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:19, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I think I understand what should be written. I will start work on this book in the coming days. Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 14:26, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd:, sorry, I forgot to ping you. Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 14:27, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard: can I upload an image that is 922*486 pixels or do I need to resize it? 922*486=453438 and 800*600=480000 so technically 922*486<800*600. I just wanted to makes sure that it’s not against Wikibooks policies. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 10:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: It's OK, the limit is an advisory for a reason after all. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 10:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 10:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A question about game manuals[edit source]

Hey, I've recently joined, and would like to aid the games section by adding game manuals from various systems. Would game manuals fall under copyright, and would they even be allowed in the games section? Thank you in advance. -LocalHOI2Fan (discusscontribs) 14:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@LocalHOI2Fan: What do you mean by "game manuals"? Do you mean the official documentation from the game manufacturer? Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 19:17, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard The manuals included with games that are sold physically (or sometimes included digitally) that include information on the games, (such as how to play them, online functionality, etc.) without typically giving the information a strategy guide or walkthrough would. -LocalHOI2Fan (discusscontribs) 14:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC) LocalHOI2Fan (discusscontribs) 19:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LocalHOI2Fan: In that case, the documentation itself must be under a valid license (that is, it cannot be fair-use). Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: So if I were to add game manuals, I would need to provide proof of owning the game and the manual? LocalHOI2Fan (discusscontribs) 15:22, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@LocalHOI2Fan:, a valid licence doesn’t mean owning or not owning the game. What Leaderboard meant is the copyright of the manual. If you create something you automatically own it and people can’t copy and distribute it without your permission. If the developers of the game wrote that they allow all people to distribute it then you can upload it but I think Wikisource would be a more appropriate place for this. Fair use refers to a way to distribute copyrighted stuff legally under certain restrictions if it’s (you are allowed to quote few sentences in order to write a review for example). Most likely it’s copyrighted because the copyright even of the earliest games hasn’t expired yet. Still worth it to check about the specific game you want. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 16:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, correct me if I’m wrong, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 12:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did I upload properly[edit source]

Hi, I have just uploaded File:Fireboy watergirl forest temple levels.png. Did I do it properly? And the author should be the one who created the screenshot, right? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 11:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard: sorry I forgot to ping. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 11:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: Yes and yes. Looks fine to me. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 11:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 12:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of writing[edit source]

Hi, I have just recently written the page about the first level in FireBoy and Watergirl. Can you please check if it’s quality is good enough? If someone who never played this game sees it will they understand how to pass the level? Starting from this level things just get more complicated so if it’s not clear I prefer to know now and not later. Here’s the page: Fireboy and Watergirl in the Forest Temple/Level 1. Thanks in advance. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 08:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've went ahead and did my fair share of improving the page. This is what I can conclude for this page.
The first point of improvement is breaking up your text into paragraphs. Most likely the audience for these types of pages are teenagers/children. To improve the fluidity of the page, breaking the text into small paragraphs will be easier for a person who's new to the game and needs step-by-step instructions. Secondly, repetitive use of "then" is irritating to read. Vary your transitional words. Here's a really good list of transitional words: Also, "just" is used way too many times. If a sentence sounds fine without "just", then you probably don't need to add that word. Thirdly, being specific is essential, especially for a step-by-step instructional guide. Using words like "it" as in "Just move it till it", and "one" in "the platform will go back up so the second player has to stand on the the second pink button in order to let the first one get up" is perplexing. What is "it"? What is "the first one"? I was confused when I stumbled on these sentences while editing the page. Fourthly, grammar needs to improve and typos need to be fixed. Statements like "Just move it till it touches the wall on the left and use to as a stepping stone..." and " the second player has to stand on the the second pink button..." are not what is expected from a quality page.
Other than that, I'm very much interested to see what other contributions you have! Thank you for your contributions and please reach out if you have any more questions. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 15:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Atcovi: thank you very much! I will take all your comments into consideration in future pages. About the buttons, I agree that it’s irritating. In this level it’s more or less ok since the design is simple - you just start from ten bottom and work your way up to the top, but other levels have more complicated designs, so I was wondering is it possible to add text on top of the image by any way except editing the image itself? I think it will be more convenient if the buttons are numbered and the text will refer to them as button number 1 and button number 2. I mean sort of like in w:London, if you press on the map you will see that the dot and the word “London” are not part of the image. Is it possible to add numbers in a similar way? Thank in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 16:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your idea. It would be pretty helpful to include dots. I suggest maybe experimenting with similar templates (example, w:Template:Australia Labelled Map) in a sandbox. Use the documentation as a guide and cater it to your topic. I'm piled up with other matters at the moment, but I could assist with this after my examination period. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with your exams! I will start experimenting with these templates in the sandbox. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 12:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I started experimenting with this in Fireboy and Watergirl in the Forest Temple/Level 1 but there’s a problem. From what I saw this problem isn’t visible in desktop view but if you go to mobile view you will see that almost half of the image is cut out. I couldn’t figure out what’s causing this problem. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 15:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd, Leaderboard, Atcovi: If you have time, do you know what’s causing the problem? It’s a bit weird as the problem is only visible in Mobile View and not in Desktop View and that’s probably why the revisions were accepted by whoever reviewed the page. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 11:58, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: Done I've cleaned up the syntax somewhat. Please see the documentation at Template:Image label begin or w:Template:Image label begin for the correct syntax. Also, this page is for proposals, ask technical questions at Wikibooks:Reading room/Technical Assistance please. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrjulesd: thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 19:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StrategyWiki[edit source]

I don't appreciate one user importing strategywiki instead of building your own content. StrategyWiki is not a "fork" of wikibooks. Wikibooks kicked all strategy guides off the site almost 15 years ago. Since then many users decided to contribute to strategywiki directly. Your users importing content from us without any discussion is not something I would have expected from a reputable community like wikibooks. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 22:14, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's how free licensing works. As much as you may dislike it, it is not something you can change, even if it were valid to assume bad faith about local editors here. No discussion is required under the license and the imports are proceeding with the mechanisms that are provided to meet the terms of the license. Izno (discusscontribs) 22:24, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is legal, doesn't make it right. These few users are targeting our "featured" guides. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 22:51, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did find one guide, Mario Adventure, that was deleted off StrategyWiki a few days ago, but is being allowed here. Since several of the guides originated from here & I try to attribute the sources (and nobody has shown significant opposition yet), I figured it wouldn't be an issue bringing them over. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 00:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't do this. We have developed extensive tools and means of verification over the years that WB simply doesn't have, and is unlikely to invest in. You are bringing information over that, as time goes by, is likely to be corrected and updated on our site, and readers here will not receive the benefit of those updates. Over the years, we have defined StrategyWiki as a go-to source for video game wiki walkthroughs. Bringing them here does no benefit to the video game community, it only potentially fractures that effort. SW exists for a reason. Duplicating the guides here serves no beneficial purpose. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 00:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The worst part about this, is that these guides are particularly reliant on the images that these guides include. SW is an extremely visual site. You're pulling all of this text over without any of the accompanying images. The readers of WB will be utterly confused and perplexed by the references that aren't present. This whole effort is a gigantic mistake. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 01:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind restoring any of those guides that were outside StrategyWiki scope and having them moved here (Super Mario Forever, Koopa Kingdom Escape). I take issue with you targeting our most popular guides. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 01:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Izno, Prod, ProcyonSW, 2005-Fan: We are not able to prevent the user from importing from strategywiki as long as the licences match, unless you get consensus from this community to prevent importation from StrategyWiki. There is little I can do myself as the licence does not prohibit importing. Same for images under Wikibooks' fair use policy. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 05:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed above that @Pandakekok9, Mrjulesd: mentioned about not wanting to compete with StrategyWiki. I'd love to hear their opinions on transwiking entire guides over. @Gifnk dlm 2020: point about creating competition for a guide is fine, as long as someone shows interest in maintaining the guide here, which is not what this user is doing. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 15:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with transwiking or using content from other wikis. It's problematic, IMO, if the said content has been completed and polished almost to perfection in SW, and no significant changes in the content were made to differentiate it from the original.

I think a better idea here is if Wikibooks writes the guide for an audience that StrategyWiki doesn't target. It seems SW writes guides for a general audience, so how about we focus on the specific ones? Like writing an RTA speedrun guide for Super Mario Bros. on the NES. Pandakekok9 (discusscontribs) 01:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pandakekok9: From Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney The guide you are about to read was originally written on StrategyWiki, where it is the #1 most popular guide. Since July 3, 2021, it has also been included here at Wikibooks.
On StrategyWiki, this is a featured guide, meaning it meets our highest quality standards. Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Justice For All (also a featured guide on StrategyWiki) - transwiki'd. The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time (complete/stage 4 guide) - transwiki'd. The Legend of Zelda (stage 4 guide) - transwiki'd.
Rest of the Ace Attorney series: Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Trials and Tribulations (stage 4 guide), Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney (stage 4 guide), Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Dual Destinies (incomplete guide), Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney - Spirit of Justice (incomplete guide), Ace Attorney Investigations: Miles Edgeworth (stage 4 guide), Gyakuten Kenji 2 (stage 4 guide). Notice that the only ones transwiki'd are the ones which are complete that probably can't be improved much? This is targeted and this is problematic.
Speedrun? Sure write it, we might even link to it.
I ask that the community here decides if this is what you want, allow 2005-Fan to make the strategy guide section a mirror of StrategyWiki, or if you want to build your own content. As Jimbo and Leaderboard have said, it's up to the community here to decide how you wish to proceed. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 05:09, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prod: I was thinking all of yesterday on how to go about this & respond to both you and @ProcyonSW:. In this edit summary I said that I'd make the Oracle games the last two that I'd directly import over (seeing as they go hand in hand with Link's Awakening, which has already been brought over). After reading some of you & Procyon's comments I felt a bit remorseful for directly adding too much, and there was a point raised that the ones that were added are yet to have their images added (I am still planning to add to those). If this continues Wikibooks could earn a reputation of having tons of imports & not enough original content. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 11:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I did import Final Fantasy Mystic Quest some days ago, and that one is very incomplete, so it wasn't all the 100% guides. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 11:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard, QuiteUnusual:. Until the community decides if mirroring StrategyWiki is a good way to jump start wikibooks content, would it be possible to remove their import access? The original admin request was only for undeleting content. This goes beyond that "temporary admin" scope. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 14:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prod: I did ask for permission before doing additional tasks. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 14:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you did, and if you had asked for importer access at RFP, I would have granted it. There's no limitation on importing compatible material from other sources - a large chunk of Wikibooks came from Wikipedia as well. I don't see any need for a community discussion about copying from another project - it is both implicitly and explicitly allowed and there is nothing in policy to suggest limitations should be imposed and that has been the case for more than ten years ("At Wikibooks you can request pages be imported. Any pages within our scope will then be imported if possible" sums it up nicely. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 15:30, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may request importer after September 28, depending on how much I get done now. The only use I'd have for importer is for deleted/redirected Wikipedia gaming articles (a LOT of them), as I've relocated and recycled several of them here lately. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 15:47, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prod: The policy allows for clarification/amendement of what temporary admins are allowed to do by asking any permanent administrator, and 2005-Fan had asked me to confirm whether importing was OK. And I was fine with it, citing QuiteUnusual for rationale. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 16:34, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, @QuiteUnusual:, and @2005-Fan:, it is easy to hide behind bureaucratic distinctions of what is, and is not allowed. Whether what 2005-Fan is doing is allowed or not is not being debated. Everyone, including myself and @Prod: recognize that it is allowed and permitted. I am still attempting to appeal to all of your sense of decency, in an effort to, as @Izno: suggested, convince you to stop. We are asking you to examine whether it is truly in either of our sites' best interests to conduct yourselves in this manner by endorsing 2005-Fan's course of action. I would argue that it's detrimental to SW and WB, for all of the reasons that I outlined below. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 22:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcyonSW: That's what I am waiting for. As I said, I cannot comment on whether what 2005-Fan's action is "right" or not since I don't have a background in video games. Hence I am watching what others have to say. As I said to 2005-Fan on my talk page, to my end what he's doing is OK as I can only look from a policy point of view, it's others like you that have an issue and that's what we are discussing on. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I take a different view. It isn't just allowed, it is positively encouraged. The reason for the creation of all the projects was to create and share knowledge as widely as possible. The choice of site licenses was deliberate to encourage the copying, with attribution, of information from other places. The correct, and "decent", thing to do is to proactively encourage the sharing of content to make it as widely available as possible to the community of humans. In my opinion your belief that it is "wrong" is striking against the whole principles of the free content movement (see the quote below from CC, the purpose of the license is to "encourage reuse", not to limit it). You are welcome to ask the community yourself. I'm just saying I'm not stopping editors doing the thing these projects were intended to do unless the community decides to ask them to stop. The default position is it is both allowed and encouraged. "Creative Commons is a global nonprofit organization that enables sharing and reuse of creativity and knowledge through the provision of free legal tools. Our legal tools help those who want to encourage reuse of their works by offering them for use under generous, standardized terms"[1]. The team at strategywiki is more than happy to leverage other people's contributions, given for free, and those editors agreed to license the content for reuse. You might like to consider whether they agree with you that when they knowingly licensed the content that way, the "management" of the project might try and limit its use. You were also comfortable using other people's freely given contributions - such as MediaWiki. As such, I don't think you've got a case that the content shouldn't be reused. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 08:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We will clearly perpetually disagree about this. My perception of your position is that you are choosing to defend an ideology regardless of the negative consequences (to both sites, not just to SW). But it's your position and I respect your right to it. I suppose I would be a little less outraged if it wasn't just SW that content was being poached from. There are dozens of video game guide wikis with a compatible license. Unless I've failed to witness it, I haven't see you transwiki content from any of them. You appear to be singling SW out. On the one hand, I could be flattered that you chose our content over everyone else's. But at the end of the day, we're still the only ones being subject to this treatment, either because of some shared history between our sites, or because of certain users' personal vendettas against SW's network (and if you look into it, your Results May Vary). So if sharing is so encouraged, where is all the sharing from other compatible sites? Why is SW the only target? I'd genuinely like an explanation to that question. From any of you. (Sorry, thought I was logged in...) ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 17:55, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcyonSW: It all depends on the editors that are working on the book. Indeed, as you say, importation can be done from any wiki with a valid licence, and no discrimination (other than the transwiki allowlist) is done at all. If 2005-Fan (or anyone for that matter) wants to import from another compatible site, we'll allow that (and they've been doing a lot of that from Wikipedia for example). There is no policy that "singles" StrategyWiki. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 18:23, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know it's not a policy. I know no one is directing users to transwiki SW. But that still doesn't explain why this experience has been isolated to us. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 21:17, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You signed up to produce free content. Being annoyed when it (potentially) gets a signal boost because the content was copied is antithetical to the spirit and wording of the license itself. That content is free to reuse for any use whatsoever so long as credit is provided (i.e. the history page) and the reuser does not attempt to attach other terms for other users (or remove these two terms) (under CC BY SA, anyway). I'm sorry you feel you have been wronged, but that's just the reality of the situation. At the end of the day, it is absolutely "right", because that is both the legal and social contract you signed when you decided to contribute under the license in question.
As stated elsewhere, you have some options:
  1. Do nothing. The content you originally produced may continue to make its way here. It may not continue to develop, in which case Google probably eats the Wikibooks version forever. It may develop negatively (vandalism) in which case your version remains preferred by the masses. It may develop in a way you do not like, in which case the most you can do is continue to do some modicum of work here to stop that. I doubt you will want to do that. Lastly, it might develop in ways that you appreciate and subsequently you can share those changes back to your wiki (with appropriate attribution).
    • Regardless of all those points, Wikibooks still is at some disadvantage with respect to non free media. Some parts of any imported content will need to change regardless.
    • At the end of the day, it is the readers that are important, and doing nothing is probably the best way to find out what the readers prefer. Consider that SW may not be the best way to present guidebook formatted game strategy. (Conversely, consider how the lack of non free media will be felt for Wikibooks - all evidence indicates that users really like pictures and video.)
  2. Change your license for all future contributions. This may have the effects of shuttering your own shareability both to and from the wiki ecosystem and of decreasing the health of your own wiki. You however cannot change the license on the contributions already present, so I do not see this as practical for your purposes anyway...
  3. Convince the users here to stop. So far, I haven't seen anything persuasive to indicate they should, at the end of the day. "I don't like it" is basically what your concern boils down to. Which has rarely stopped anyone.
As for "it splits the effort", maybe so, but I think StrategyWiki is far more guilty of that supposed issue in respect to the topics it covers than anything Wikibooks could ever do.
Finally, if you are producing the superior product, you have nothing to worry about. The almighty search algorithm cares most about where people go, and if the content is there for you, they will go there. I anticipate, accordingly, you are making a mountain out of a molehill.
(Sorry Wikibookians for stepping on any of you lot's toes.) Izno (discusscontribs) 08:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all arguing whether this move is legal or not. Yes, the licensing permits this, and you are not the first to wholesale duplicate our work somewhere else. At the very least I can praise you for having the decency to credit our authors for their effort, which is more than other sites have done. I am directly appealing to your third point: convince users here to stop. It is beyond "I don't like it." If that were my only argument, I wouldn't bother.
I am all for the effort of information sharing. But, for example, at SW we chose not to duplicate an entire Pokedex because Bulbapedia has produced the best one anyone could possibly look for. And we link directly to it. We recognize that their effort far exceeds anything that we could produce (theoretically) so we didn't wholesale migrate it to SW. In doing so, not only are we respecting their expertise in the matter, we are strengthening user's access to the best possible source of information. WB isn't doing that. There's no effort to send users to the best possible source, it's glory hoarding for the sake of "See? We have content too." Bravo? That's nothing to be proud of. If you were really interested in supporting the gaming community, you'd join our efforts on StrategyWiki rather than pretend as if you are somehow a source for valuable gaming information. If someone has a question about the content of our guides, and they ask it here, who's going to answer it? You guys?? What are you going to do, forward the question on to us? This kind of stuff happens almost every day, and over the past 15 years, we've built up the community to deal with it because this is our passion. It seems like your only passion is amassing content.
"but I think StrategyWiki is far more guilty of that supposed issue"
I would absolutely love to hear your attempt to justify that statement. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 13:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcyonSW: I don't want to discuss this too much because I don't like getting caught up in debates, but I do agree with @Izno: that this is making a mountain out of a molehill. I will share my thoughts and opinion on this subject matter.
For one, wikis (provided you follow the licensing rules, such as Creative Commons or GFDL) are a group of volunteers who are creating content on a subject. There's a copyright disclaimer saying that you're putting your work out there to be redistributed by others. I've set up MediaWiki before, and it says something along the lines "if you don't want your content mercilessly edited or redistributed, do not submit it here." Nearly all wikis have been spun off from Wikipedia and have used it as a basis at one point or another. The fact that Wikipedia has a dual license makes it more flexible to reuse, as long as you properly attribute (which is common sense because we want to know who did the original work). If you were all for information sharing like you say you are, we wouldn't be arguing about this. A better idea would have been using the CC-BY-NC-SA license when you set up StrategyWiki back in 2006, as this license is incompatible with the Wikimedia Foundation wiki licenses.
I know you're talking about the StrategyWiki community, but can you speak for absolutely every single editor who has edited on the website? It's one thing if you created a guide yourself, but it's another thing to speak for every single editor (including inactive ones) like you "own" the wiki and its content. A wiki is a collaborative community effort -- no one should claim ownership over others' work. I'm beginning to think that your main incentive for posting is because you're concerned over losing site traffic, as I can't see why else you'd have a problem with content being redistributed, especially if attributed and credited properly.
Also, when you provided an example on Bulbapedia and its Pokedex, you were basically admitting to the restriction of some essential and valid game guide content simply because you think a community does it better. No group of people should be a gatekeeper of information. If Wikibooks allows Pokedex entries (provided no copying from Bulbapedia or some other external source with an incompatible license), then that would only help Wikibooks attract more editors because they would feel more free and that flexibility to add their own content rather than feel, "there's no need to because someone else already did it." Perhaps they have a different way in which they want to display the in-game data?
Also, I do play several types of video games (especially platformers, RPGs, and Warriors), so if someone had a question, I could probably answer it. There are two other users making a Link's Awakening 2019 guide and a South Park of Truth guide respectively. Are you going to tell the authors of those two guides that they are putting hollow content on the site? Let's say if the situation was reversed and you transwikied those pages back into your wiki. Perhaps the editors would mind, but the administrative staff of Wikibooks would not mind unless you don't properly attribute to Wikibooks. If I made a guide here, my own writing and all, go right ahead and take it if you want. It's there for others to benefit from.
I was late to the video game guide debate on Wikibooks myself (I wasn't here at the time), but if you had significant concerns or opposed the new policy, you could've let the community know back then. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 15:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was there, we didn't like it, and there wasn't much we could do. So we moved on. Procyon wrote large section of some of the guides you've transwiki'd. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 15:25, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Consider that SW may not be the best way to present guidebook formatted game strategy."
I also laugh at this. We have conducted extensive studies and surveys on this subject, and the current design of our guides is the result of those investigations. We listen to our users routinely and are constantly implementing improvements to make our presentation as clear and intuitive as possible. If you truly believed our format was so ill-conceived, you wouldn't be trying to pass said work off as your own. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 15:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then why did I say on the Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney article that it is listed on StrategyWiki as the #1 most popular guide? As for an earlier comment about the images, it takes a lot of time to add them, especially when manually entering a summary and a non-free use rationale. Nearly all of the Zelda: Ocarina of Time ones have been added, and Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney ones have all been added. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 15:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I didn't want to say this, in an effort to not appear callous, but I'm honestly less concerned about you stealing our traffic. We've put a lot of work into SW and earned our position in the search engines. I don't really think WB is going to make much of a dent in that. That's not why I'm concerned. What I'm concerned with is there's already so many options for video game wikis who specialize in video games. Could we rip each other's work? Absolutely, as you've said, there's nothing stopping that as long as the licenses are compliant. Do we do it? No. We stand on the merits of what we have to offer, and send people to relevant sources of information when the opportunity presents itself.
You've lifted entire guides from our site. You've modified the content to better fit your site's formatting, but you haven't really made an improvements to them. And if someone comes across one of our guides on your site, finds a point that needs updating or clairifcation, and decides to contribute that nugget of info here, are you going to then retroactively apply that piece of information on our site? Of course you're not. Nor is the person who authored that content because, in all likelihood, that person isn't going to take the time to discover where that content originated. They see it here, they fix it here.
We've spent years making SW a welcome home for authors passionate about sharing video game information with the general internet population, all out of sheer willingness to share the information and collaborate. You could just join us over there, collaborate with us and help improve the site, but you're not. Instead you're diluting the effort that we've put into making SW a home for such authors all so that you can say, "Look, we have game guides too!"
Cool, you've got a Link's Awakening guide going that you established yourselves. I wish you felt like SW would be a good platform to develop that guide on, but you don't. So be it. But at least that's your guide. And sure, other sites are going to rip it and further dilute the effort, but we're not going to be a part of that because it's antithetical to what we're trying to achieve. At the end of the day, I can't stop you. You seem hell bent on proceeding with your plan to transwiki from us whether it's actually a good idea or not. But at least have the decency to be honest about why you're doing it. You want WB to have some relevance in this area so you're grabbing the best content available in order to climb the ladder without doing any of the work. Good for you if you can accomplish that. Bad for everyone else. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 16:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am the current primary author of the Wikibook The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening (2019 video game). I would like to make it clear that this book was not entirely developed here, as one page was imported from StrategyWiki during the import process. You can view this page here. Credit is given to StrategyWiki in the references footnote of this article of course, and such credit was given prior to the start of this discussion as you can see in the page history. I have no desire to harm StrategyWiki or it's community. Quite the opposite, I personally would much rather StrategyWiki flourish over the inflexible static and commercial guides which have dominated the industry since it's inception. That said there are good reasons I picked WikiBooks for this guide, namely because I don't intend this guide to be for gamers specifically (Though it can certainly be used that way). Plenty of guides with that purpose already exist, and I would bring nothing new or exceptional to the table there. Indeed, I consider my writing subpar compared to more seasoned authors of strategy guides at the moment. I want this guide to be for students of media and popular culture, as well as for other non traditional gamers who may use it in some media centric study. As such I have taken an approach which tries to make the writing style of the guide more accessible over a traditional strategy guide, as well as include notes on game design, and real world influences as encouraged by the Wikibooks:Strategy guides guidelines. Currently this book is in development and these haven't been incorporated as much as I've planned, but writing a strategy guide, or any book, is a significant undertaking and is hard work (I'm sure you are quite aware of this!). Under the StrategyWiki guidelines, such fluff is explicitly discouraged[2] and that's ideal for a wiki focused on strategy guides because fluff like this does reduce it's utility to gamers just trying to beat the game. If you are interested, I would be more then happy to help transwiki the guide to StrategyWiki once complete, and to make a version without such fluff to make a version more suitable for gamers and StrategyWiki guidelines. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 20:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Mbrickn:, I actually love the idea of what you're trying to achieve. And you're correct, as you've described it, it wouldn't quite be at home at SW, but I'm very curious to see how your work turns out, and to see if there are any lessons to be learned about how to make our guides more accessible as well. If you'd like to trasnwiki it to SW, sans the "fluff" we'd welcome your contributions. I'm not anti-competition for the sake of having "sole domain" over video game guides. Heaven knows we have plenty of competition on that front, and we're a bit of a David to Curse Inc.'s Goliath. I wish you the best of luck with your guide, and hope it serves the audience you're seeking to address. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 21:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I'll send a ping when it's more developed. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 21:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, companion guides for "see this design decision" would be amazing and are currently outside our scope. I remember watching a video about the game design behind the first level of Super Mario Bros. (this link goes into detail, I don't remember the original source). Having books like this that went over some of these concepts throughout games would fall inline perfectly with wikibooks existing focus, and would pair perfectly with StrategyWiki guides. -- Prod (discusscontribs) 23:57, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You can view SW in Monobook
@Mbrickn: While my following reason is purely based on layout and cosmetics, I also like the look of Wikimedia Foundation wikis (vector and monobook, mainly the latter) more than StrategyWiki's default layout. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 21:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
False flag argument: you can very easily change SW's presentation to vector and monobook at will. See the thumbnail. ProcyonSW (discusscontribs) 21:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do seem to be focused a lot on default site design & how most others would perceive it 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 21:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Meriyakatariya8859@2005-Fan 2401:4900:4110:5FE7:5A23:1B6A:EB19:3CCC (discuss) 22:28, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not too terribly important to the topic at hand though, right? Besides, on most MediaWiki sites anyone can make the appearance whatever they want in their preferences. On this topic through, StrategyWiki does have the functional advantage of being able to make it's sidebar wholly optimized for gaming contents by default. As I said earlier, Wikibooks and StrategyWiki have different objectives, and that's fine.--Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 21:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of the imported strategywiki guides, I happen to own most of the games that have guides with substantial amounts of content. I don't think most readers or editors are particularly sentimental over stubs. Would it resolve this whole issue if I just started writing a bunch of new guides from scratch? It would be a lot of work and take a lot of time, but I'm willing to do it if it puts this to rest. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 18:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If 2005-Fan had merely restored all the deleted content here, cleaned it up, Maybe imported a few updated pages with the latest changes, we would have had 0 issues. I would love to see original content being built here.
By targeting our most high quality guides, they made it personal. I know a number of small independent gaming wikis who are watching this discussion closely. This discussion has not been encouraging to them. Prod (discusscontribs) 18:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Prod: The most high quality guides were prob because they were of the most popular games. I actually did the Ace Attorney ones upon request from someone else. I was mainly focused on the Mario, Zelda, and Final Fantasy ones (to fill in gaps and compensate for those 15 years lost). I typed above that I'll stop importing, and I haven't done the Pokemon or MapleStory guides (which I see are featured ones as well). I see your Luigi's Mansion guide is at 100%, but I started a fresh one at Luigi's Mansion just days ago (although it currently only talks about the ghosts, which itself is from a redirected Wikipedia article). I keep planning but haven't gotten around to building up a Fire Emblem Warriors guide yet. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 19:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shelves[edit source]

Currently Shelf:Electronic games has too many shelves in it. It’s good that there are many texts about many games, but that makes it hard to find the shelf for game design and for game strategies. I suggest I create a shelf Shelf:Electronic games by franchise to make it more organized. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discusscontribs) 17:41, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody? -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 14:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn, Leaderboard:, pinging users who participated in the discussion about creating the subshelves. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 21:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed this. You bring up a good point, and I'm happy to reshelve them.--Mbrickn (discusscontribs)
Before I forget we should also ping @Mrjulesd: since they also had a say in the discussion. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 03:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: Done after waiting a few days for further comment for other users. I must say it's much cleaner now. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 06:57, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft data packs[edit source]

Hi, I was curious to know. Are books about making a Minecraft data pack allowed? A datapack is sort of like a mod, only easier to make, more limited, and instead of putting it it a mods folder you put it in a specific minecraft world. Also that way, if you have a server, only the owner will have to install it. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 09:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbrickn, Leaderboard, Mrjulesd:, any comment? -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 21:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: Sorry I missed this. Under the old policy prohibiting strategy guides, modding books were apparently exempted (As Doom Modding and How to Mod Civ 4 were made during that policy). If you intend to write a book on that subject, I don't see why it would be disallowed given precedent. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 00:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Slight tangent: If you're feeling ambitious, you might consider starting a larger book on Minecraft Modding or even on Minecraft itself and writing about data packs in that book as a chapter too, but a standalone book on the data pack format and how to use it is probably fine. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 00:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: I would agree with Mbrickn, looks fine to me. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 07:19, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for you replies. Makes sense. Just one more question, is it allowed to write about popular flash games uploaded to sites like Newgrounds that have a large amount of walkthroughs on YouTube or is it required that they appear in review sites? Thanks in advance. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 15:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That may fill the inclusion criteria, but it's not cut and dry. The rule of thumb in the policy lists two example review sites, but these examples are not the only sites allowed, just strong indicators. There are probably some reviews out there if these games have a lot of walkthroughs/significant coverage. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 08:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, does this mean that if I can find say 3 reviews on YouTube and link them that the game is relevant for inclusion in Wikibooks? -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 10:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: Probably, though it's certainly strengthened if they have editorial review. There are flash game breakthroughs like Super Mario 63 already, so there's precedent. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 21:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, OK I see. Thank you very much. If I send an example of reviews in YouTube of a flash game, could you please check to see if they are notable enough or is that too much to ask for? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 09:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that. However, I want you to know that I trust your judgement. It sounds like there's a lot of coverage, so it's probably fits. Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 05:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, Thank you very much! I was going to ask about Picos school but this game has a Wikipedia article about it so it’s most certainly notable so instead I will ask about a beat em up game called “dad n me”. I couldn’t find any reviews of it outside of YouTube but here are some in: Heavy Metal Gamer: Dad N' Me Review, Dad N Me Full Walkthrough Gameplay, Dad 'n Me review!, Dad 'n Me Review. This one feels really edgy in terms of inclusion policy so that’s why I prefer to ask. Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 13:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, now that I know the title in question, it seems much more clear cut. That should be fine - It was a big deal when it won an award at the Independent Games Festival in 2006. As a historically significant title that won a prestigious award, I don't see a problem with it's inclusion, even if link rot has made many of the prominent reviews from that era more obscure. Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 00:16, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, thank you very much! I will soon start work on a walkthrough of the game Dad n Me. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 09:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOLGraphics[edit source]

Hi this is sort of a weird question. LOLGraphics is an esoteric programming language which can be downloaded in Also there’s an article about it in I know that books about programming are allowed but are books about esolangs also allowed? Nor sure where to leave this question and since LOLGraphics is more of a “joke Lang” I thought it would make sense to put it with questions about games. Is it allowed to create a book teaching how to program in an esoteric programming language? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 15:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbrickn, Leaderboard, Mrjulesd:, thoughts and opinions? -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 18:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I missed this. I'm not well versed in policy for inclusion of computer programming languages on Wikibooks, but there is precident. Wikibooks has had books on esoteric languages such as Programming in 1L a for a while. Many esoteric languages are funny, but many do serve a purpose in expoloring unorthodox methods of programming, and such often have educational value worthy of a textbook, niche though it may be. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 23:46, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, oh I see. Thank you very much! I didn’t know there was already a book about an esoteric programming language then it will probably be fine. Thanks again! -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 07:12, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also one more question, The LOLGrphics editor and interpreter don’t have “complex designs” so can I upload screenshots directly to commons? Thanks in advance. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 07:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find much precedent for it over in Commons:Category:Proprietary software. Commons:Category:TED Notepad has interface screenshots, but they went through the VRT process. You could ask the developer if they would be willing to go through the VRT process. The path of least resistance is most likely simply uploading the file on Wikibooks I'm afraid. However for output images you generate with the software by using your own code, those may be suitable for commons. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 09:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard that, Leaderboard posted at about the same time as me, and their explanation seems better. Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 09:48, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, Oh I see. I didn’t state that earlier since I didn’t want it to look like advertising but I’m the creator of LOLGraphcis. I want to create a book to describe the language and teach it not to advertise it though. And about the graphics part of LOLGraphics it has 2 image: one of a cheeseburger downloaded from commons and one very large image created in paint that doesn’t fit the screen and is used in a sidescroller demo. I would like to upload in the first chapter two screenshots: one of the editor and the second of the interpreter to show the layout, and in the other chapters of the interpreter to show how the codes run. Hope I have made myself clear. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 10:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well shoot, as copyright owner, you can do whatever you want with your software. You have every right to upload your own content to commons In that case. That definately simplifies things!
You're probably well aware, but just in case I always like to remind rights holders that once a file is on commons, the genie is out of the bottle, and people could use those CC licenced images for any (License compliant) pupose really. That said, I doubt there's much potential for misuse there. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 10:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, thank you very much! I will start work on a book about LOLGraphics soon. I thought there was some process to prove I’m the copyright holder. Also I don’t really mind people using screenshots of LOLGraphics. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 12:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a process if you want to prove beyond a doubt that you, the creator of LOLGraphics, give permission to use such images. You can read more about that at commons:Commons:Volunteer Response Team. Hope this helps! Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 19:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, sorry for the late reply but I’m a little bit confused about how the process works. I can send an email but how will they be sure that it’s the same email address used to upload to Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 18:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in case you missed, I have started work on Programming in LOLGraphics 3.4 though I still haven’t uploaded any images to it. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 21:54, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's cool! I chipped in a bit. Thanks for writing a guide to this. Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 05:17, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, thank you very much! Btw, is it possible to make it so that the preface I wrote in Programming in LOLGraphics 3.4 will show up also in the printable version? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 09:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Done! --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 05:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 11:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: I would think that is OK (esolangs are still Turing complete). Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 08:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard: I see. Thank you very much! Do you know if it will be ok to upload screenshots to commons though? You can see examples in the page ( I have uploader rights and can upload to Wikibooks but would prefer to commons if possible. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 08:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: Generally this should be fine, because if it's mainly geometric objects or text, they are PD (public domain) and hence acceptable as per Commons rules. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 09:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, ok I see. Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 10:38, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, just like it’s possible to specify a code is written in python and it will be colored, is it possible to add LOLGraphics? That the code will look dark blue like it would in the editor. If it’s possible I will check the exact rgb values. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 11:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Leaderboard, Mbrickn:, do you know if it’s possible ? -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 12:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like syntax highlighting?
There's a list of supported langs at
It appears that this is in turn powered by the library Pygments
You might try adding support upstream, or maybe developing a custom template for support directly on wikibooks for something quicker. Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 15:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: Mbrickn is right. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 17:41, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard, Mbrickn:, oh I see. Then it probably makes sens to make a custom template. Is it possible to use custom rgb values and keep the frame surrounding the code? -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 20:59, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: Unsure about an RGB value, but does something like this work? --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 01:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, I think it would work, but for the codes I didn’t use <code></code>. I added a space at the beginning of every line. Is there a way to imitate this effect? -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 07:44, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody? Do you know if it’s possible? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 22:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nvm, I managed. Also I don’t think it has to be the same color as in the editor as it looks better that way and there will have to be screenshots regardless. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Merry Christmas 🎄(talk) 09:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shelf:Grand Theft Auto[edit source]

In Shelf:Electronic games, there are 4 books about Grand Theft Auto, so I suggest to create a shelf for the franchise. -Gifnk dlm 2020 If only Middle English Wikipedia could be saved(talk) 12:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shelf:Grand Theft Auto Done! Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 02:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 08:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annotate a video game???[edit source]

In Wikibooks:Annotated texts, it’s written:

It may also be possible for Wikibookians to annotate other forms of narrative media besides just written texts. For instance, it may be possible to annotate a motion picture, a video game, or a musical song/album. Such cases might be permitted under this policy if they are shown to be academic and well-written.

Could someone please explain how would an annotation for a video game and if it’s possible to annotate a tv/YouTube series as well? Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 Merry Christmas 🎄(talk) 14:05, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gifnk dlm 2020: The text is speculative and will depend on the exact circumstances. Notice that it is possible to annotate a book if and only if the book itself is copyright-free - which means that you are unlikely to find an annotated "modern" book. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 11:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, yeah I understand how you can annotate a book and it makes sense that it has to be copyright free, but I don’t understand how you would annotate an interactive media like video games. Wouldn’t that be like a walkthrough or a strategy guide? -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: In a way yes. Notice that text was written when video games were completely banned and to me was placed only to avoid the line of thought that books are the only thing that can be annotated. I should clarify one thing - annotations to a copyright book are indeed possible (see Muggles'_Guide_to_Harry_Potter for an example). So I can see something like this possible for a TV/YouTube series as well. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 11:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, yeah I have noticed this. The problem is that I don’t understand how an annonation of a video game would be written. Also I have checked out Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books/Chamber of Secrets/Chapter 2. I assume an annonation of a movie/series would be formatted similarly, but I still don’t understand how one would annotate a video game, unless it was as you said just there to show that not only books can be annotated and they never actually meant to annotate a video game. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are many things that can be annotated about a game, though some games are more suited to it than others.
The most obvious example is a visual novel or interactive fiction, since each could theoretically be rendered as a print book (à la choose your own adventure), and are inherently similar mediums. Text based RPGs and scripted dialogue heavy RPGs do not fall far from the tree here, and have much in common with television or cinema in format and direction.
However there is a lot more that can be annotated then simple textual content. Another way of creating an annotated text is to write about things other then the text of the game itself. Story, Characters, Environments, Game design, etc. can all be deserving of discussion and analysis in the right context, as in any analysis of a fictional world.
As an example, much has been said about World 1-1 of Super Mario Bros, and how without using much text, it teaches the player how the game is played. (Effectively becoming a textbook example in many game design talks) Thus you could for example, do an academic analysis of how a game instructs the player, or other non-textual aspects.
Even games which are exclusively multiplayer, or even primarily spectator oriented, can be annotated, as besides gameplay, there are cultural values beyond gameplay which may be deserving of academic analysis. (Similar to how some academic analysis of theater often considers the audience just as vital to the access of the performance as the stage, script, or even actors themselves)
Let me know if this helps, or if you have any questions! Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 02:38, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, so have I got you correctly? Any game can be annotated, and the annotation will be an analysis of the plot, the characters, the game design, the cultural significance, etc. -08:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. The annotation can be free to focus on a specific subtopic (Eg, just the game world such as in Illustrated Guide to the world of Spira (FFX and FFX-2)) or be broader to cover multiple topics. Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 13:34, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mbrickn:, I was thinking of the implications of your comment, and I wonder, would it be acceptable to annotate the YouTube series Minecraft Deep Dive which goes into the lore of Minecraft. Of course all the content in the episodes are just speculations. Every episode in the series will have a chapter in the book and each chapter will discuss the speculations of the given episode and also the theories of other people regarding the same topic. What do you think about this? -Gifnk dlm 2020 From Middle English Wikipedia 📜📖💻 (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that personally, but other users likely have valuable insights. I'd pitch it as an independent proposal here first before creating the book just in case. Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 21:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, sorry for the late reply. I will be sure to do that before creating the book. -Gifnk dlm 2020 From Middle English Wikipedia 📜📖💻 (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please make a category about Roblox[edit source]

Since Roblox is not a game, but rather a collection of games, please consider making a subsection for it. --Red-back spider (discusscontribs) 23:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-back spider:, I’m not an admin but I’m curious to know what you mean. You can make a shelf about games check out Shelf:Electronic games by franchise. After you asking to create Shelf:Roblox? -Gifnk dlm 2020 Merry Christmas 🎄(talk) 20:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I want to make a category in Shelf:Strategy Guides/ called Roblox with a collection of games in Roblox. Red-back spider (discusscontribs) 05:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-back spider:, Oh now I see. @Mbrickn, Leaderboard, Mrjulesd:, what do you think about this suggestion? Now I see why you want to make it a subcategory off Shelf:Electronic games and not of Shelf:Electronic games by franchise but I’m not sure if I agree with you. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Merry Christmas 🎄(talk) 05:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also those are the books that I found about Roblox: Roblox Game Development, Roblox Studio Tutorials, Roblox WF Wars. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Merry Christmas 🎄(talk) 05:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: An explanation on what Roblox is would be needed. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 11:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, Roblox is an online game platform and game creation system. Basically you can make games and play games other people made. However it’s different from sites like Newgrounds since all games have to made with their platform and therefore the visuals are somehow similar to each other. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Merry Christmas 🎄(talk) 13:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should regardless of Roblox, make a shelf in Shelf:Electronic games called Shelf:Electronic games by platform then we can put there strategy guides of Roblox games, but currently none exist and I don’t think it’s beneficial to create an empty shelf. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: But then would those games even meet the notability criteria? We don't just accept any game after all. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 11:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, tbh the answer is idk. If reviews and let’s plays on YouTube are enough for a game to be considered notable then I doubt there’s a lack of notable Roblox games. It seems as if @Red-back spider: is interested in books about Roblox games and yeah this is a very important question that must be answered. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 12:31, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to add that IMO, all games mentioned in w:List of Roblox games are notable. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 14:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, do you think games listed in this Wikipedia page are notable for inclusion in Wikibooks? -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 07:18, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Gifnk dlm 2020: I would think that looks OK, as long as they are actually popular for a good reason. Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 08:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Leaderboard:, Ok I see. Thank you very much! @Red-back spider:, you can create books about these games and add them to Shelf:Roblox. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. sorry for the super late reply. I just missed the whole conversation. But thanks anyways guys! Red-back spider (discusscontribs) 06:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done! Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 22:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, proposals about strategy guides which are not strictly about the strategy guide policy proposal itself should probably go into their own threads, so this thread stops being resurrected, and can be archived (This thread is nearly one year old).
This increases the visibility of other proposals, including new proposals about strategy guides. Of course, if someone wants to comment about the original strategy guide policy proposal, it should be done in this thread. Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 04:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, so have I got you right? Proposals for new strategy guides should be new threads and questions about this policy should in this thread? I think most of my “proposals” were questions about the policy. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 09:04, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may have worded that poorly. I don't think your questions of policy are necessarily out of place.
Basically the the purpose of this thread was to discuss weather or not we should "Start allowing game strategies". Any comments on re allowing strategy guides should definitely go here. However questions related to the policy, but not specifically about re-allowing game guides, may be more visible to other wikibooks users as separate threads. Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 09:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mbrickn:, oh I see. Thank you very much! Btw, you may have missed the section above about creating Shelf:Grand Theft Auto. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 09:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Shelf:Grand Theft Auto Done! Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 02:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia in Wikibooks?[edit source]

Hi guys, I'm an administrator of Vietnamese Wikibooks. I would like to ask the members of English Wikibooks a question. I know "Wikibooks is not an encyclopedia", but this is only for Wikibooks project, not for the books in Wikibooks. Please read the book I found at Hungarian Wikibooks. Can we make a book that looks like a mini encyclopedia? Not Wikipedia, I mean a book like "Bird Encyclopedia", "Encyclopedia of Nations" or "Encyclopedia of Paintings". Sorry for my bad English. I would be happy if a native speaker corrects my English mistake. Đức Anh (discusscontribs) 13:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. The book you linked is a Lexicon and not an Encyclopedia. English Wikibooks already has those, so I'm not sure why a Lexicon wouldn't be accepted.
Unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable to comment on the policy of encyclopedias on Wikibooks itself. That said, for other books which are subject specific encyclopedias, there is presumably some reason why their component articles wouldn't be transwiki'd into Wikipedia instead. Lean into that reason. For example if the "Bird Encyclopedia" has instructions for finding specific birds, consider bookifying it into a "Field guide to Birds" instead, which emphasizes the instructional aspect of the material. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 22:08, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me the difference between "Lexicon" and "Encyclopedia"? Đức Anh (discusscontribs) 01:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exact definitions are a bit out of my wheelhouse, so take this with a grain of salt (I might be wrong). A Lexicon (In this context, it has other meanings too) is a book that lists words. A dictionary is an enhanced lexicon of sorts. An Encyclopedia is a book that focuses on facts, typically from an extremely general point of view. An example from the book you suggested b:hu:Heraldikai_lexikon/Kálváriakereszt leans more encyclopedic in style (Perhaps the meaning of Lexikon in Hungarian differs greatly from Lexicon in english.), but it primarily focuses on how a symbol is relevant to heraldry and is comparable to a section from a chapter this historical book in wikisource wikisource:A Complete Guide to Heraldry/Chapter 19. Another example can be seen in the book Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter. That book's article on Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Characters/Harry Potter is substantially different in style (Often using an in universe POV for readability, and builds on content from other parts of the Wikibook.) compared to wikipedia:Harry Potter (character), which takes great strains to remind the reader constantly that the character is fictional since it exists in the same namespace and context as real life topics. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 07:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What is out of scope of Wikibooks is encyclopedic articles. E.g., a single page on David Beckham. However, a book that was in effect, say, an encyclopedia of aircraft, would probably be in scope. Essentially, Wikibooks as a whole does not contain articles but individual books within Wikibooks could be constructed of articles, and many are. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 11:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That clarifies things a bit! Thanks! --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 13:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It might be good to clarify the policy so it's a bit more straightforward about it's purpose. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 16:35, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is a bit late, but I just wanted to note an example of an encyclopedia on english Wikibooks at The Complete Encyclopedia of Self-Help Techniques. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 11:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft assets and blocks copyright[edit source]

I would like to make a Minecraft strategy guide, or if already made, add onto it. I believe that Minecraft is All Rights Reserved and is not to be used for commercial use according to But what if I take screenshots of Minecraft, but with a Public Domain resource pack? Like this? Maybe then I could take screenshots and upload them here? - Red-back spider (discusscontribs) 21:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could try uploading images to WikiBooks directly, instead of to commons, using the same sort of rationale Wikipedia uses for images such as wikipedia:File:Minecraft_explore_landscape.png. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 06:36, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amend Wikibooks:Strategy guides.[edit source]

The proposal[edit source]

This would allow users to submit amendments to our strategy guides policy.

Debate[edit source]

There are 2 options here.

  1. Keep: This would keep the status quo.
  2. Amend: This would allow the community to amend Wikibooks:Strategy guides with consensus. (discuss) 18:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repeal[edit source]

NOTE: I am removing "Repeal".

Keep[edit source]

  • Keep We just talked about this. Your arguments about (1) the potential for fancruft are overcome by just having more eyes on projects: encyclopedia articles about popular culture can attract fancruft as well. Video game strategies (2) are books: I've read several myself. And (3) any topic could have POV concerns. I don't even understand the motivation for this. —Justin (koavf)TCM 21:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close This is nonsense: now that it's been revised, the proposal is just "Allow us to amend policies". This is a wiki: that's true of virtually every page. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I agree with the points Koavf raised. Furthermore, I'd note that Wikibooks:Neutral point of view and other Wikibooks policies still apply to strategy guides. In the strategy guide policy at Wikibooks:Strategy guides it is explicitly stated that content must follow neutral point of view policies. Even if it were not explicitly stated in the strategy guide policy itself, sitewide policies like NPOV would still apply. --Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 23:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - A lot of Wikipedia gaming articles have been relocated here, many of which were deleted for 13-15 years, and now they have found an official purpose for reuse, as they did not benefit Wikipedia's scope but ended up greatly benefiting Wikibooks' scope. Also, the original proposal for reversing the ban on strategy guides raised an excellent point about how chess and, I think, board games were allowed to be covered but that it makes no sense that video games were not allowed to be covered. Another thing is that CC-BY-SA license is not subject to copyright, but the images and media are and fall under a strict fair use license with rationale required. 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 03:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a pointless proposal. Even if "Amend" were to be the majority vote, this doesn't mean that a user can unilaterally make changes to the guide - consensus is always required (which doesn't need this proposal at all). Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 04:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP per above arguments. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note:this user might be a sock puppet. (discuss) 17:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep poor arguments and it seems like the IP is targetting Gifnk dlm 2020. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amend[edit source]

Not allow users to decline permission nominations.[edit source]

This would not allow users to decline permission nominations. If someone does a bad faith one, we just let it run its course. T. Gregtregretgtr (discusscontribs) 17:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why we might want this[edit source]

  1. Some vandal/troll/what-have-you can use that Cyrillic "a" looking like a normal "a" or some other letter that looks almost the same.
  2. Some users should be admins, but aren't.

Support[edit source]

Oppose[edit source]

Neutral[edit source]

Discussion[edit source]

@Tgregtregretgtr: Sorry, I'm not seeing why this is needed. Is this a problem that is coming up frequently? —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: No, but I am MAD because impersonators can reject nominatons for permissions (Cyrillc "a",anyone?). T. Gregtregretgtr (discusscontribs) 23:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgregtregretgtr: Heads up that {{ping}} doesn't work if you don't sign your posts. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: You misspelled "unsigned". T. Gregtregretgtr (discusscontribs) 23:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeesh. This is why we collaborate. Thanks, T. —Justin (koavf)TCM 23:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  2. "StrategyWiki:Guide/Walkthrough" (in en). 9 February 2020.